About your Search

20120928
20121006
STATION
CSPAN 3
WETA 3
WMPT (PBS) 2
CNBC 1
CSPAN2 1
FBC 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WBFF (FOX) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
's assume a new set of laws is passed. as quickly as they are passed, election lawyers figure out how to get around them. it is remarkable. it's constantly evolve issue. would i support moving the money back to the candidates. absolutely. i think there has to be a mechanism i worked for two millionaire politicians. i believe there should be a mechanism for rank and file. to be able to raise larger amounts. but i believe putting the money back in the candidate account create more accountability and much more integrity driven process to frame an election. me personally yes. and, you know, does my firm make money off the kinds of campaign. absolutely. from my perspective i think it's better for the country if we went back to that model. >> can i answer? >> i don't know that i agree with the assumption of the question. if you look at what -- [inaudible] look at what super pac actually do and what the advertising does, everyone in here age lot of people in the political times remember the question in political times 101 should the elected representative do what he believes is right or what the co
decisions about what treatments are given. that's explicitly prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated that under his plan he would be able to cover people with preexisting conditions. well, actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does. what your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law which says if you are out of health insurance for three months than you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can't deny you if it's been under 90 days. but that's already the law. and that doesn't help the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions there's a why reason governor romney set up the plan that he did in massachusetts. it wasn't a government takeover of health care, it was the largest expansion of private insurance. but what it does say is that insurers, you've got to take everybody. now, that also means that you've got more customers. but when governor romney says he'll replace it with something but can't detail how it will be, in fact, replaced and the reason he set up the system he did in massachusetts
what treatments are given. that's explicitly prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated, that under his plan, he would be able to cover people with pre- existing conditions. that isn't what your plan does. what your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law, which is that if you are out of health insurance for three months, then you can end up in getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can deny you if it's been under 90 days. -- cannot deny you if it's been under 90 days. but that's already the law, and that doesn't help them and the people out there with preexisting editions. -- the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions. there's a reason why governor romney set up the plan he did in massachusetts. it wasn't a government takeover of health care. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. but what it does say is that, insurers, you've got to take everybody. that also means you've got more customers. but when governor romney says he'll replace it with something but cannot detail how it will be replaced and the
, president obama's done a much better job in enforcing the trade laws than we've ever seen before. he's pushed china. he just won three cases. he won a case on pipe to put thousands of people back to work. he won a case of tires that put people back to work. and he just filed one on auto parts. look, mitt romney's talk is cheap. he'll go back to this -- he's working on currency. we're all working on currency. mitt romney will go back to the same paradigm that we had before. signing agreements that are good for wall street but not good for main street. >> even though this tax increase that we're about to see is going to increase taxes for anybody making more than $250,000. >> which tax increases you talking about? >> the fiscal cliff issue as we see the tax cuts expire at year end. >> well, the president said he wants to continue those tax breaks for people earning less than $250,000. it's the republicans that say no, we won't give anybody anything unless the millionaires and billionaires get their tax cut too. they don't need -- they need to pay their fair share. and we -- >> thanks,
is already the law. if you are on health insurance for three months, then you can end up getting continuous coverage. insurance company cannot deny you if it has been under 90 days. that is already the law. that does not help millions of people out there with pre- existing conditions. there is a reason why governor mitt romney said of the plan he did in the massachusetts. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. what it does say is insurers -- you have to take everybody. that also means -- when gov. romney says he will replace it with something but cannot detail how it will be replaced -- and the reason he said of the system he did in massachusetts is because there is not a better way of dealing with pre-existing conditions. it just reminds me -- he says he will close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan. we do not know the details. he says that he is going to replace dodd-frank, wall street reform, but we do not know exactly which ones. he will not tell us. he now says he will replace obamacare and insurer as all the good things and it will be in there and you do not have to
. that is explicitly prohibited in the law. let's go back to what governor romney indicated.. under his plan, he would be able to cover people with pre-%+ existing conditions. actually, governor, that is not what your plan does. what it does is to duplicate what is already the law, which says, if you are out of health insurance for three months, you pan end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company cannot deny you if it has been under 90 days. but that is already the law. that does not help the millions of people out there with pre- existing conditions. there is a reason why governor romney set up a plan he did in massachusetts. it was not a government takeover of health carr. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. what it does say is insurers, you havv to take everybody. that also means yyu have more customers. but when governor romney says he will replace it with some thing, but can not detail how it will be replaced, and the reason he said the system in massachusetts is because there is not a better way of dealing with the pre-existing conditions problem. he says he will c
are given. that's prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated; that under his plan he would be able to cover people with preexisting conditions. governor what your plan does is to duplicate what is already the law, which says that, you know, if you are out of health insurance for three months then you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can't deny you if it has been under 90 days. but that's already the law, and that doesn't help the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions. there's a reason why governor romney set up the plan that he did in massachusetts. it was the largest expansion of private insurance, but what it does say is is insurers you have got to take everybody. that also means you have more customers, but when governor romney says he replace it with something, but can't detail how it will in fact be replaced -- and the reason he set up the system he did in massachusetts is because there isn't a better way of dealing with the preexisting conditions. it reminds me of how he is going
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)